[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Licensing issues
- To: Grigory Entin <Grigory.Entin@arcadia.spb.ru>
- Subject: Re: Licensing issues
- From: Jose Orlando Pereira <jop@di.uminho.pt>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:04:53 +0000
- Cc: xtl@lsd.di.uminho.pt
- Delivered-To: mailing list xtl@lsd.di.uminho.pt
- In-Reply-To: <B641C78D.4314%Grigory.Entin@arcadia.spb.ru>
- Mailing-List: contact xtl-help@lsd.di.uminho.pt; run by ezmlm
- Organization: Universidade do Minho
- References: <B641C78D.4314%Grigory.Entin@arcadia.spb.ru>
On Wednesday 22 November 2000 15:57, you wrote:
> >>
> >> - the impossibility of separate linking voids the
> >> relinking clause and everytinhg is ok;
> >
> > If it is technical infeasible to distribute a library as a dynamic
> > library, then issues of dynamic linking simply don't come up. I believe
> > everything is ok.
>
> So it's clear now XTL can't be used in closed-source projects. It's up to
> developers to make the license choice but.. I'm not so experienced in the
> subject but it would be great if somebody can discover a weaker alternative
> to LGPL - that suites needs of open-source developers but allows
> closed-source use.
As I understand it, it is the other way around: There is *no*
problem whatsoever in using XTL in closed source projects as
the relinking clause is not applicable.
:-)
--
Jose Orlando Pereira
* mailto:jop@di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jop *